For anyone who would care to take a stab at these, I had some questions after last night's W:I games:

1. Can you target your own support cards (if you have the means)??

2. Is the Development placement offered by City Gates , Empire #40, Support Card " FORCED: After your turn begins, place the top card of your deck into this zone as a development. ") in ADDITION to your normal Development card placement or does it count as the SOLE development you are normally allowed to place? I don't really see why this is a good card all things considered.

3. Questing - Can I have multiple units questing, each on their own respective quests on a single turn? So could I plop down 2 or 3 units onto quests (assuming I had the open quests and units to quest with) on the same turn or can you only send 1 unit Question each turn?

4. With Questing and Resource Token accumulation - if you have a unit on the quest and it's not a quest where you have to, say, sacrifice that unit to make that quest work, do the Resource tokens just keep accumulating on that Quest? Does that have any effect if so or are they just extra (basically wasted) Resource tokens?

5. If a Unit is moved off of a quest by its owning player, does that count as something that would RESET (remove the resource tokens) that particular quest or does the Unit have to actually "leave play" per the rulebook?

6. This is something that may need to be Errated or put into the eventual FAQ: In the rulebook on Page 12 it states that to burn a Capital Zone, " anytime you have as many (or more) damage tokens as it has hit points, that section is considered overrun and burning " BUT on the very next page (13) , under #5 Apply Damage it says, " If an attacked section of capital is dealt damage that SURPASSES the number of hit points it has remaining - that section is now considered burning ." Which is it? Do you simply have to do as many hit points in damage as a Zone has OR exceed the hit points that a Zone has to damage it?

7. Grudge Thrower (#18 Dwarf Support) states, " Battlefield. ACTION : Spend 1 resource and sacrifice a unit to have each attacking or defending unit gain 1 power until the end of the turn. " My question is where does the Sacrificed Unit have to come from? The same zone (i.e. Battlefield per this placement limiation on this card)?

8. My opponent had the Unit " Troll Slayers " (#4 Dwarf Unit) and he then played the Tactic card, " Striking the Grudge " (#21) which says, " ACTION : One target attacking or defending unit gains 2 Power until the end of the turn ." on his Troll Slayers . In response, I then played " Demoralize " (#46) which states, " ACTION: One target unit loses 2 Power until the of the turn ." My question is what would be the result of these 2 cards after resolving them? Would my card, Demoralize , activate first (per the rules of Last played, First resolved) stripping his unit of 2 power and AFTER THAT his Tactic, " Striking the Grudge " would go into effect adding back 2 power? Just checking to see if I am doing this right.

9. Can a card's effect (such as Demoralize, mentioned above in question #8) cause a Unit to have negative Power??

10. Does having a Zone become "burned" have any other effect on Units, Developments, or Support Cards at that Zone?? Can you still play Units, Support cards, and Developments into a Burned Zone?

11. Urguck , Orc Hero (#62), says, " During your capital phase, you may spend damage on this unit as though it were resources. " Is the damage that you spend in this fashion removed permanently from him, then, as it is spent?

12. Contested Fortress (#112) states that it can " Cancel 1 Damage to your Capital each turn. " Does it do this effect on the fly, in real-time as the damage actually happens OR can it be used to remove 1 previously placed damage at any time? It's an important distinction, I think. If it has to do it on the fly, it can only cancel damage dealt in the immediate present, not heal up previous damage.

13. It feels like there isn't quite enough stuff to destroy Support Cards in the game. Is it just me, am I missing something or just not noticing the right cards OR are some Races/Factions just wimpier when it comes to Support Damaging?

14. Are there any limits, other than the 3 cards of the same title rule, for Neutral cards in deck-building??

15. Shrine to Taal (#41) states, " FORCED: After your turn begins, choose one target unit in this zone. That unit gains 1 power for each of your developments in this zone until the end of the turn ." My question is does this power have to happen immediately after it becomes your turn (and what defines "after your turn begins" anyway) OR can it happen ANYTIME after your turn begins (which could imply much later in the turn even). The wording seems to support both interpretations, imho.

------------------------------------------------------

That's it, whew!

1 )sure

2)

Forced : After your turn begins, place the top card of your deck into this zone as a development.

It doesn't count towards the play one development per turn rule and it doesn't cost you cards from hand.

3) you can have as much units questing as you like, if you have enough quests in play.

4) yes

5) the rules should say that, but don't/

6) should be the 1st one.

7) doesn't say, so from play.

8) they add up.

9)yes, it's counted at 0 thoug for purposes other then raising/lowering.

10) no effect.

11) yes.

12) the first damage never arrives.

14) no

15)) at the beginning of the turn.

In addition to Marius correct answers i would just like to elaborate on numbers 4 and 5 a little:

4.)The resource tokens DO still accumulate. Seems a bit strange but there are certain quests which have an 'X' value in them that obviously benefit from going past the 3 resource token limit. Therefore it some instances it may seem strange that the quest cards still accumulate tokens, but unless stated otherwise they do.

5.)the rulebook is actually incorrect here and will need an errata at some point. It states that only a unit that is removed from the game will reset the token. This simply is impossible to manage in realistic terms.

For example a unit has accumulated 2 token on a quest before being 'forced marched' off the quest. The tokens in this instance stay in play. You then drop another unit from your hand on to the quest and the quest begins accumulating tokens again. At some point in the future, the original unit is removed from the game by 'flames of Tzeentch'.

Do you remember how many tokens that unit produced on the quest because now is the time to remove them.

That memorising mechanic is just poor and totally incorrect.

For all intents and purposes when a unit is ' removed from the quest' , treat it as removed from the game.

Osiris

(Edit: question 8.).......

yes you are playing the order of the card correctly, here is an example of a similar passage and play

* You declare your troll slayers as an attacker and tell your opponent where you are going to attack

* both of you can now play tactics if you wish.....at this stage I would NOT play tactics as no defending units have been announced .

*Your opponent now declares his defenders.

* both of you can now play tactics if you wish.... Now is the time for the defending player to play a demoralise if the slayers are better than his defending unit and for the slayers to play striking the grudge to boost his slayers. WHATEVER the last card played will be the first card resolved. so in your instance, you demoralise (-2 power) his unit and then strike the grudge his unit (+ 2 power) meaning their is no power gain or loss once the effect have resolved.)

* Damage is now assigned, but not actually dealt

*both of you can now play tactics if you wish...typically these will be damage prevention and sacrificial tactics.

* Damage is actually dealt, characters receive damage and capitals receive damage.

* both of you can now play tactics...usually these will be tactics that may have an effect on attackers or defenders this turn.

Hope that helped?

Osiris

One question I have is how can anyone really be certain of rules answers at this point without a FAQ or direct contact with a designer? For example, I asked in question #6 about the requirements for Burning a Capital, and Marius states that the answer on Page 12 is correct - my thought is, How can you be sure when the rules say the opposite on the next page? Just kind of wondering on that.

But either way I'm glad to hear people's thoughts on the rules, it helps establish them in my head AND hopefully people who were able to play at GenCon (and got some rulings there) can chime in, also.

This is clearly a fantastic game! Let's get out there and Demo it for others and ramp up some enthusiasm for it.

Wytefang said:

Some of it is down to common sense.

The abstract concept of hit points has been used for years. It has always been when hp = 0 character/item/building/donkey/shoes = dead.

it has never been hp -1 = dead, which is what the incorrect entry in the rulebook suggests. Of coure you are totally correct in your statement that we don't truly know, but at this stage we must make assumptions based on our previous and current experience.

In your example I have never played a game where hp = 0 does not equal dead. Or in this case destroyed.

Osiris

Osiris said:

Nothing yet about the Undead faction ?

Totally agree with you, in that regard, Osiris (about common sense being a guide). But I could see the point that you have to account for a Unit or Capital Zone's current health and then actually damage it beyond that point. I have seen that in other games, too, thus my confusion.

I suspect it will be that you destroy the exact amount of health but until a FAQ is released, we can't be totally sure I suppose.

Undead would be totally awesome, Dam.

Wytefang said:

Undead would be totally awesome, Dam.

After Wenches aka Witch Elves aka Dark Elves, Undies (gee, a lot of quesionable nick names ) are next on my want list. I mean, base game comes first, then those two.

Wytefang said:

Indeed. And currently it is totally down to personal interpretation , but if any of this helps, I totally agree with Marius answers.

Osiris

It does help - many thanks to both of you guys for taking the time to answer rules questions in here and share your insights!

Osiris said:

There are games where you must get dropped below zero HP. This isn't one of them. I was taught to play by one of the developers at FFG and it is definitely 0 equals dead.

Osiris said:

I would definitely send this to Nate. There is absolutely nothing in the rules that would indicate this was what they meant to do Osiris, so it comes down to assuming the rules are wrong because there may be some difficulty in remembering. IMO that is never a good reason. I do expect clarification, and I would not be at all surprised if the end resoultion is what you say, it makes plenty of sense from the outside, but assuming you know the minds of the developers and what they intended a card or rule to do, versus what the card or rule says is asking for confusion. BNEsides how likely is this to happen where simply divind the resources to left/right/on/off the quest card isn't going to solve the problem. I think it becomes a bigger probllem when you have three of the location changing Empire units all on the board at the same time and one had been on a quest and your opponent starts playing three card monty with them.

Wytefang said:

Some people learned at Gencon and so were taught by FFG personell. I was taught by Nate French (not that I'm an expert or anything because of that, but most of it is forgetting about what you want a card or rule to be and reading it as written.

While we're on the subject of errata for the rulebook, there's an error on p14 as well. The turn sequence summary states that "Characters leave play if they are out of hit points", surely this should say "units"?

dormouse said:

Well it would just cause ridiculous situations where neither player has a clue how many counters should be removed after a unit which was removed from the quest 5 turns ago, is removed from the game 3 turns ago, after a new unit was played there 2 turns ago.

It's counter-intuitive and well.....bad from a design point of view.

But like I said previously, these are just my opinions and the opinions of some other members of the forums.

Osiris

ChaosChild said:

Spotted that one too CC, reckon its probably worth keeping all these in a thread for developers reference?

Osiris

Yeah, but if I put a guy down on a quest, earn to power, take him off, and put another guy who earns three power, take him off, put on a third who gets one additional resource, I can keep the current resources earned on the quest card, the first to above the card and the second set of three under the card. Which grouping of power came on in which order is now no problem. The problem is which of my three identical Empire units in play put resources on that quest.

I do trust there will be some eventual clarification, and if it doesn't come out before I buy my set, I'll send an email in asking for clarification.

dormouse said:

But thats just a poor solution to an easily solved problem. Change the text to ' removed from quest ' and we have no need to make piles of tokens above or below the card. It would be all too easily for a player to declare that the pile of tokens above the card belongs to one unit, but 7 or 8 turns down the line switch the token to another unit (either deliberately or mistakenly).

Like I said, it seems a poor solution to an easily solvable problem.

Osiris

But is it really a problem? Maybe it is a feature? They could have done this on purpose. The ruling that comes down mya be that any unit removed from the quest is no longer a questing unit and even if it is killed it does not remove the resources from play. It would make using quests easier stopping them a bit harder (no more forced march to create a reset situation), and is just as simple.

*shrug* this is why I'm waiting on NAte rather than just coming up with a House rule or going to far into speculation and investing myself emotionally in any interpretation.

dormouse said:

I'd fully support that ruling as it seems logical.

I personally don't see it as a major issue no matter how they rule. Right now there are what three or four cards that may cause this to happen in a game. If they picked the worst possible way to rule (and I have no idea what that would actually be) I'm likely to see it no more than once every couple of gaming sessions. It isn't going to affect my enjoyment of the game. I just want it to make sense after some fashion when I teach new players the ropes.

dormouse said:

Some people don't just play the game for fun though do they? Some people are very competitive and will attend tournaments and other sanctioned events that FFG will arrange.

In those instances I would like and need a definitive ruling just IN CASE the situation came up.

Now I'm totally and 100% all for people having fun playing cards, but if there are serious tournaments for serious players who take the game seriously then rulings such as these need to be addressed and FAQ's/errata produced.

If the game isn't designed to be competitive, and therefore just played around a kitchen table, then sure, go ahead and make your own rulings, your house, your rules.

We are in agreement. I'm just pointing out that some people seem to be saying one type of ruling is better than another. I'm saying that the situation is so unlikely to happen frequently enough that the worst ruling possible (whatever that may be to you or anyone else) is very unlikely to actually affect the game play experience.

I do want a clarification of the rule though. Even when I don't play a game at a tournament level I do want to play it the way the designers intended.

dormouse said:

Absolutely. I wouldnt like to gain an advantage or exploit a sketchy rule; I'd rather play it exactly as it is intended. Post up the reply as soon as you receive it Dormouse; it will be most helpful

I should get it no later than Halloween. I'm traveling the UK and Thailand for the rest of the month... but right back to Minneapolis for work over Halloween, and if I don't have an answer by then I'll walk right up to FFG's offices and ask.